Published 8:31 pm, Sunday, January 5, 2014

New York state's multiple primaries do not serve the democratic process.

THE STAKES:

Merging local, legislative and congressional contests in June makes sense and would save an estimated $50 million.

Politicians have long known the advantages of manipulating the timing and frequency of primary elections.

Holding the primary later in the election cycle constricts the general election campaign and limits a challenger's ability to make a case against an incumbent. Holding more than one primary a year and moving the dates around dampens turnout, drawing fewer independent and diverse voters. Those who turn out are usually the most hard-core party members, many of them loyal to incumbents, if not beholden to them.

New York currently holds two main primaries. One is in June for U.S. Senate and House seats, a mandate of a federal judge. The other is held in September for state and local races. Presidential primaries every four years run on yet another timetable.

This legislative session, lawmakers will consider a plan proposed by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to align the congressional, state and local primaries in June. Republicans who share control of the state Senate with the Independent Democratic Conference have been cool to the notion.

The later state primary date has certainly worked to the GOP's advantage. Take 2012's September primary for example. Incumbent state Sen. Roy McDonald was challenged by Saratoga County Clerk Kathy Marchione, and the narrow contest wasn't decided for several weeks because of a recount. This left only about five weeks for Ms. Marchione's Democrat opponent to run against her, depriving the voters in the district of more time to compare the candidates. A truncated general election can also easily affect the outcome in a close race.

More Information

Some Senate Republicans have held out an August primary as a compromise, but a date in the midst of summer vacation time would only produce an even lower turnout.

A June primary race could admittedly interfere with incumbents' schedules during the closing weeks of the annual legislative session. Then again, if lawmakers keep meeting the April 1 budget deadline, they'll no doubt find most of their work is done long before primary season. And their job performance will be much fresher in the public's mind in June rather than September.

But perhaps the most compelling argument for this is the savings — estimated at $50 million. Interestingly, that's close to how much it would cost to implement a system of public financing of political campaigns — an idea Republicans have derided as a public subsidy for politicians. Yet they're content to force taxpayers to underwrite separate primaries that do nothing but give incumbents a political advantage?

By comparison, a single state primary in June could boost primary turnout and give the public more time to weigh candidates in the general election. The savings could go to a modest public campaign finance system designed to reduce the influence of big money interests in politics and give smaller donors — those who write checks for less than $100 — more significance in the political system.

Better turnout, fewer election dates, and money freed up to actually improve the political system. Mr. Silver's measure would be a all-around win for democracy.